To think mumsnet needs a separate 'Gender' section?

[Jargoyle]

I've been lurking here for years prior to signing up, but have now all but abandoned the women's rights section due to the overwhelming proliferation of trans threads.

I get that self ID is a big issue but I was saddened, for example, during the whole Irish abortion debacle that the first thread on it was barely two pages long whilst people were happily discussing Caitlyn Genner's style comments until the cows came home.

I think a separate section would be beneficial where the same old posters can have the same old discussions about it all.

Ringleader?

She’s just another poster for christs sake

Shes not a mix of joan of arc and gengis khan

No offence if you are reading lang

Jargoyle: I consider myself to be a massive feminist. I'm gender critical and would probably be described as a terf by TRA activists. I blocked FWR last year because of how dogmatic it has become.

This pretty much describes me

So you don't consider yourself a feminist, but expect the Feminism board to cater for your non-feminist interests?

Right-o.

We don't have a ringleader. Pretty pathetic to suggest we do.

I do love Lang though - try to resit the temptation to gloat, it's not becoming, or really 'in the spirit.'

But, OP, it's not just some bun fight. It is really important, and few platforms are available upon which to make very serious points. I have had some time away so didn't see the run-up to the JPh web chat, but when rare and limited exposure is offered on a relatively safe platform, it needs to be optimised. And, as JPh was a LP leadership candidate at the time, I think it is only fair to expect her to be able to articulate an opinion, and possibly look 'bad' if deliberately evasive or wilfully obtuse.

Deffo not in the spirit flushed

I really don't know how MNHQ could have been clearer that Lang was banned for persistent rudeness towards the mods. I really don't think it was a nefarious plot to get rid of a "ringleader".

That said, Justine did seem to make it clear that she has concerns about the current state of FWR.

Oh dear, OP. You talk about being "childish" and then mention a "ringleader." Own goal there.

and then the subsequent discussion about starting a thread with all the questions she won't answer to make her look bad etc.

Such an incredible misunderstanding of what women here are trying to achieve. Those questions were not designed to make anyone "look bad" - they were asked by genuine posters here, who would quite like answers to our questions - answers from a sitting MP who was running for Leader of Opposition - yet they were all vanished.

I don't think it's too much to expect a politician joining us for a webchat to at least SEE the questions being asked.

The fact that people are still attributing the above quote to me (which was written by another poster) furthers my point about how anybody who dares to question any element of the GC dogma is seen as some amorphous 'enemy'.

YABU

There are very few women in the world who are unconcerned about safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

Characterizing that concern as a privilege is not just unreasonable. It is much more.

No one is doing that jargoyle

Its been pointed out by one person that you agreed with the original poster

Wow. The 'we don't want to talk about trans issues, it's boring' posters certainly seem to want to discuss the topic at great length on this thread!

And you aren’t an enemy

Youve got a bit of a thing about gangs and ringleaders and enemies, its really just a forum not the hunger games

God, yes. It's beyond tedious now.

The fact that people are still attributing the above quote to me (which was written by another poster) furthers my point about how anybody who dares to question any element of the GC dogma is seen as some amorphous 'enemy'.

This is what was posted.

Jargoyle Sat 25-Jan-20 18:16:27

[quoting another poster]
I consider myself to be a massive feminist. I'm gender critical and would probably be described as a terf by TRA activists. I blocked FWR last year because of how dogmatic it has become.

[This is Jargoyle's response to the other poster]
This pretty much describes me.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3804680-To-think-mumsnet-needs-a-separate-Gender-section?msgid=93413882

....

Alright

I take it back...it is like the hunger games

And, as JPh was a LP leadership candidate at the time, I think it is only fair to expect her to be able to articulate an opinion, and possibly look 'bad' if deliberately evasive or wilfully obtuse.

Especially as Jess Phillips had recently said that it was 'awful' that a woman should have the right to end her marriage before her husband was allowed to change his legally recognised sex.

She was also on the Women and Equalities Committee which was responsible for proposing changes to the GRA making it easier for anyone to change their legally recognised sex.

She has been involved with this area of politics, so asking her questions about it was perhaps more relevant than with many other MPs. The little she said about this on the webchat did highlight how little she actually knew about it, though.

you people

reading and remembering the OPs posts. then expecting the OP to be consistent

you're a bunch of unreasonable bastards aren't you?

i hope you're ashamed of yourselves

Mumsnet clearly recognise this as they've banned the ringleader to make a point.

LOL

I love these threads.

Jargoyle said (see linked post and screenshot)

"I consider myself to be a massive feminist. I'm gender critical and would probably be described as a terf by TRA activists. I blocked FWR last year because of how dogmatic it has become."

This pretty much describes me.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3804680-To-think-mumsnet-needs-a-separate-Gender-section?msgid=93413882

I read threads in which trans is mentioned, and time and again it is assumed that anyone being unconvinced about the absolute rightness of self-id is being "opposed to trans people". No; wrong. What people are opposed to is not the few thousand people who are actually transitioning; mostly those are regarded entirely positively.

The thing women are worried about is males with penises and who are not in the least female and who do not have the least intention of actually transitioning, but who will find it very, very convenient to claim their right to identify as women and go into places where partially-dressed women and female children will be present for them to enjoy. Most women dislike male voyeurs, in my experience, and to have to feel that not only is voyeurism no longer frowned on by those in authority, it is being actively (if ignorantly) condoned, and laws are in prospect which would make it illegal for a woman to try to prevent a voyeur from having access to female children, upsets many women.

Women do not think all trans people are voyeurs (or worse: molesters). They think that voyeurs may masquerade as trans people in order to be able to forward their perversion without anyone daring to question their motives lest they get a visit from the police for their wrong thinking.

A voyeur and a trans person are not the same thing -- except when the voyeur claims that they are. And that worries me as none of my trans friend ever has during the past (counts on fingers) fifty years. It worries a fair few of my trans friends, too, because they do not in the least want to be tarred with the same brush as male perverts.